Feedback from Cameron Slater: ‘gay’

I mentioned blogger Cameron Slater peripherally in my post yesterday about what I see as the dubious anti-MMP marketing operation (for which he is clearly acting as a conduit and echo chamber).

I don’t think Cam liked my comparing his blog to a free-flowing bowel or characterising his republishing the anti-MMP slanted attack ads as ‘moist ordure’ being expressed through his ‘partisan cyberspace sphincter.’

There are some out there who think that as a blog­ger I should be fair and rea­son­able, a jour­nal­ist in fact. That is gay. I am not fair, I may be rea­son­able (some of the time) but I will always be par­ti­san. And so writ­ing limp-wristed panty-waist, whing­ing blog posts filled with faux shock that I take a par­tic­u­lar line and run it hard is frankly gay too. I am par­ti­san and I’m proud of it. …

One could certainly read my comments about his partisanship as criticism, even disparagement, but ‘faux shock’? Neh. I don’t get that. He’s not that novel.

It may seem strange, but I actually think Cam deserves a bigger audience. (Not as a journalist though, of course not.) I for one appreciate the flashes of insider knowledge and the historical & political perspective he shares at times. He’s ‘connected’ to the National Party and politics is in his blood. That can be valuable. He’s also sufficiently thick-skinned that he can be an asset in a debate … when he can be arsed to marshal an argument. And, as I’ve said before, good on him for engaging.

If Cam ever asked me for advice on how to achieve more recognition or ‘cut through’ with the mainstream media, I would tell him just what I said in the post.

Drop the reflexive ad hominem attacks and (colourful, I grant you) vitriolic spray at those you perceive as not on your team, and perhaps you might be taken more seriously.

It’s not about ‘pretending’ to be non-partisan. It’s about tolerating another point of view than your own as potentially vaild, giving evidence for your criticisms, and being seen to do so.

It’s about being truthful (‘Pansy Wong cleared’? Not really), not always trying to smear or demonise others, or seeking to use everything you see as a cudgel to bash your ‘opponents’.

Or, instead, stick with what you’re doing, if you’re satisfied with those results.

In military terms, being strong in the centre can be extremely dangerous. Arguably the greatest general’s of them all, Hannibal, famously proved this to the Romans in the battle of Cannae. Beware of the flanks! You could get encircled by a much smaller force…

In political terms, in the 1950s, the establishment in the US typically regarded Martin Luther King as a communist, an extremist, and potentially a terrorist. In the 1960s, the black panthers and Malcolm X arrived on the stage (“White people are a race of devils”). Suddenly, MLK was magically transformed from being an extremist to occupying a very reasonable middle ground. He was now a man you could do business with. The middle ground had moved…

How does a change in the “average view” or accepted wisdom happen?

Poormastery would surmise that there is usually a maverick involved. Someone with unconventional views, who expresses these views forcefully, can change the accepted wisdom. At first, they will be labelled as nutters and extremists. Partisan, rabid, and silly. Later – sometimes much later – their views may even become mainstream.

Poormastery likes the maverick. Dare to walk a different step!

Perhaps it is good, Peter, that we have the pragmatists of the world like you staunchly occupying the perceived middle ground. Most people have middle of the road views. Let’s all be reasonable now.

Yet to poormastery’s taste – I want – and indeed poormatery appreciates, something more than this.

Many of the great geniuses of history thought and acted differently from us or anyone gone before them – so were able to deliver to humanity something that never the like of which had been seen or heard before or since. Mozart / Bach / Wagner / Beethoven in music or Leonardo / Michelangelo / Carravaggio in art are examples of this phenomenon.

Many of the great minds in history were outsiders. Many were mavericks. Few were conventional middle ground thinkers.

A blogger needs to be incendiary in general to pique my interest. There must be pathos.

My favourite is Stanislav the Polish Plumber (you have to understand UK politics to understand his blogs fully):

Yeah, I agree with you about how what’s defined as ‘the centre’ or ‘average’ or ‘mainstream’ can change — and rapidly — by having its reference points stretched by ‘extremism’, some of which is progress, and some whatever the opposite of progress.

To be sure, the [Republican] party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today …

And yeah, I generally like people taking a position, and, as you know, expressing it clearly, intelligently, passionately, forcefully — all good.

One of the deeply annoying things about modern media is a what Jeff Jarvis calls ‘The View from Nowhere‘ illustrated by the joke: If someone says ‘The earth is flat’, journalists report:
‘Opinions on shape of earth differ’.

(Reminds me of climate change deniers.)

But contrary to some suggestions, I’m not recommending fake objectivity … giving ‘equal time’ to bigots or haters or nutters [a troublesome definition I grant you] or those advocating discrimination or ethnic cleansing … that’s not what I mean.

Likewise, I don’t want to suppress loyalty to a team or a cause (unless the team or cause is evil e.g. Croatian serbs killing muslims, or shi-ites killing sunnis or Catholics killing Protestants … ) and I do NOT subscribe to the view of fake ‘balance’, as I said,

It’s not about ‘pretending’ to be non-partisan. It’s about tolerating another point of view than your own as potentially vaild, giving evidence for your criticisms, and being seen to do so.

Here’s where a ‘problem’ arises: when one’s partisanship leads you to demonise opponents, and to make untruthful or misleading statements. The ends do not justify the means.

I give you a quote from the great Orson Welles (a fantastic maverick) from the flick The Third Man:

“Don’t be so gloomy. After all it’s not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.”

The quote is in fact wrong in many technical respects, but nonetheless, the point seems to me to be that change, innovation and progress are often associated with periods of conflict…

I’m happy to listen to your feedback and follow this dog-leg of the conversation which (at least from my point of view) started as a discussion about slanted anti-MMP attack ads being promulgated through Cameron’s blog & tweetstream … and, more significantly to me, the apparently hypocritical manner in which the anti-MMP group ‘pledged’ to stay above such tactics … before engaging in them as a cornerstone of its campaign.

Like you, I’m ALL FOR for character and flavour in publishing and commentary. Indeed, a wise Jewish man is quoted as saying ‘If salt loses its flavour, what is it good for? It’s only fit for trampling underfoot by oxen.’ (or words to that effect)

If I didn’t give a rat’s arse about Cam and his blog I wouldn’t, umm, give a rat’s …

Not so. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous saying goes, ‘You’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.’

The example I raised, Cam mis-representing the Auditor-General’s finding on Pansy Wong, for example, to say she was ‘cleared’ and then use that misstatement as a cudgel with which to mean-spiritedly beat Trevor Mallard was an unworthy move for someone who, as Cam does, calls other people to account for their lies and misdeeds.

He may disavow journalistic ethics and standards but implicit in a public denouncement of others for ‘telling porkies’ is an acknowledgment/claim/assertion that such things aren’t to be expected from the tub-thumper on the soapbox — journalist or not.

Poormastery, you and I have both been on the receiving end of ham-fisted censorship by those who, for all sorts of undeclared reasons, regarded our inconvenient facts and opinions as unhelpful and extreme (‘maverick’, if you will). We were both at different times even accused of running a vendetta or some sort of conspiracy — so we know the other side of this. It’s not completely analogous because neither of us is running a public discussion forum with published ‘rules’ saying how we will operate. Nevertheless, we have that shared experience pricking bubbles of deceit and incurring a reaction to that.

One of the things I like about engaging with you is your attention span, and I like that about Cam too, but honestly, when I’m confronted with a endless stream of “XX is an idiot, YY are thieves, ZZ is a disgrace” … the Whale fan ‘army’ might lap it up, but (just my opinion:) the phrase ‘too rich for my blood’ pops up and after a while it becomes monochrome and monotone.

I have only looked at this Cam blog for a couple of minutes. I also read one blog by this Cactus Kate after you mentioned it (about ACT).

I suppose if your main point is that bloggers (and indeed people in general) should try to be truthful, I would agree with you.

I sense that your point is more than this. Perhaps you are frustrated that Cam blog is hyperbolic and written in a sensationalist style? I suspect that this Cam character might even agree with this assessment? Irrespectively, it is not to your taste. From my very quick glance of the blog, it wasn’t actually to my taste either. As such, I am presumably not the target audience either?

All I would say about Cam’s audience is that they might be better off reading things on the internet rather than watching mindless television?

Since I have been on a movie quotes theme, and we are talking about target audiences, here is one by Howard Beale (Peter Finch) from Network:

[arms outstretched to the heavens] “Edward George Ruddy died today! Edward George Ruddy was the Chairman of the Board of the Union Broadcasting Systems, and he died at eleven o’clock this morning of a heart condition, and woe is us! We’re in a lot of trouble!

[calmly strolling toward the audience] So. A rich little man with white hair died. What has that got to do with the price of rice, right? And *why* is that woe to us? Because you people, and sixty-two million other Americans, are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books! Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers! Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn’t come out of this tube! This tube is the Gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers… This tube is the most awesome God-damned force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls in to the hands of the wrong people, and that’s why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA – the Communication Corporation of America. There’s a new Chairman of the Board, a man called Frank Hackett, sitting in Mr. Ruddy’s office on the twentieth floor. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome God-damned propoganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network?
Howard Beale: [ascending the stage] So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-damned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth… Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to find any real truth.”

We’re in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth… Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to find any real truth.”

Yes, indeed.

Are we so jaded that ‘hot & spicy’ vitriol is the new ‘normal’? That reasoned discussion leaves us untouched?

Thanks for parsing my ‘objection’ down to the issue of truthfulness. Hyperbole is, by definition, exaggerated — sometimes to the point of outright lie.

If I have a ‘frustration’ (not a big one) it’s with a sense of wasted opportunity for Cameron. A bit of application of:

“Comment is free but facts are sacred” — legendary editor of The Guardian, CP Scott

and a deliberate emphasis on applying fair-mindedness could see Cam’s influence grow beyond the current partisan fringe. But as it is, he’s constructed a loose cannon, over the edge demonising persona which by its very nature repels mainstream acceptance … if not respect & the media opportunities he seeks. Not that ‘acceptance’ is necessarily the ‘goal’ but I’m sure he would like a bigger platform.

[…] far more serious breach) I observe in some political blogs, some of whom really fancy themselves as opinion shapers. the way I see it, a reasoned, fair-minded discussion is easier to listen to, and more effective […]